I urge you to support three concrete steps to help stop the violence:
Ban military-style assault weapons
Ban high-capacity magazines
Require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers
Please sign and share.

Congress chose to legalize the gun that killed the children of Newtown, and Congress has the power to ban these military-style assault weapons. I urge you to support these common-sense and long overdue reforms.

Please read, sign and share. Keep up the pressure, do not let any one forget what happened in New Town, Connecticut.

If you support this then PLEASE call your Congressional representative, call those in the House who are opposed to such action, call those on The House Judiciary Committee, call them at least once a week. Keep the pressure on. We can have power, we just need to use it, you don't have to be in their district to call and make your feelings or demands known. This legislation will not guarantee that there would never again be a tragedy, only that some wide open "loop-holes" will be closed.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden
U.S. Senators
U.S. Representatives
State Governors
State Legislators
Tweet a Message to Your Representatives
Contact Your Government, by Agency
Contact Your Government, by Topic

Contact Us

FAQs
E-mail Your Question
Chat
Phone

Don't be reluctant to get in touch with these people, you pay their pay check, health insurance, retirement pensions, vacation days, office space and staff. You have every right to use your computer and phone to call all of these people and let your feelings be known. The focus for now and after they return from Christmas/New Year vacation should be on the House Judiciary Committee, and any House or Senate member that says they will vote "NO" we can not tolerate any more obstruction.

From an emotional perspective I wonder how much violence can this country tolerate?

Wednesday December 19, 2012, 10:01 am
You've made it easy for us to share our views, Kit - thank you. And I have signed every petition, written letters in addition, and called. We need to keep the pressure on. If not now, when?

So true Arielle - "if not now when" -- How long do excuses about "our rights" stand up to scrutiny? What of the rights of the many dead from these many massacres? This is just too long, the needless deaths too many. No one is asking for the Second Amendment to be over turned just for a small amount of reason and common sense.

Wednesday December 19, 2012, 10:32 am
Noted, signed, twittered and shared. Thanks Kit. This tragedy is going to be the catalyst for change one way or the other. I just hope for all of our sakes that it goes in the right direction for once.

Wednesday December 19, 2012, 10:55 am
There are too many guns in too many hands in too many places, and that is a clear and present danger for the rest of us. Their rights end where our rights begin. We should not tolerate this abusive gun-toting society that makes it dangerous for the rest of us. More guns is not the answer. Less guns in less hands in less places is what we need. We have a right to feel safe, but we are the ones who need the protection from these gun-toters who think it is okay to shoot a kid walking down the street, or playing their music too loud to suit him, or these innocent children and the adults who tried to protect them. There are so many things that need changing, including the reining in of the NRA. Get them out of the lobbying business and sue them out of existence.

Thanks Jelica just too juicy to not share these names. Though we must remember that not all donations are recorded or displayed for public information since the Citizens United, Supreme Court decision.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations were made during the 2012 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission. Figures for the current election cycle are based on data released on November 12, 2012.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

Wednesday December 19, 2012, 9:39 pm
Facts on risks of guns in the home (debunks myth of improved safety to families):
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Linda L. Dahlberg1,
Robin M. Ikeda2 and
Marcie-jo Kresnow3

+ Author Affiliations

1 Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
2 Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
3 Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

Next Section
Abstract

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30

The health risk of having a gun in the home
Share on printShare on email
By Susan Perry | 12/17/12
handguns
REUTERS/Joshua Lott
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Notice that the recommendation doesn’t call for parents to simply lock up their guns. It stresses that the weapons need to be taken out of the house.

Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.

What he found was sobering, to say the least.
Accidental deaths

To begin with, having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. As Hemenway points out, death certificate data indicate that 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns each year between 2003 and 2007. Half those victims were under the age of 25.

Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.

Nonfatal gun injuries occur at the average rate of 20 a day in the United States — and that doesn’t include pellet-gun injuries (which average 45 day) or injuries that don’t involve a bullet wound (like powder burns and recoil injuries).

“One study of nonfatal accidental shootings found that the majority were self- inflicted, most involved handguns, and more than one third of the injuries required hospitalization,” writes Hemenway. “Injuries often occurred during fairly routine gun handling — cleaning a gun, loading and unloading, target shooting, and so on.”
Suicides

An average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined.

Gun owners and their families are not more suicidal than non-gun-owners, research shows. No are they more likely to have a history of depression or other mental health problems.

But they — and their families — are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun. The reason: Guns are more lethal than other methods.

One study found, reports Hemenway, that “in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state’s population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.”

But “there was no association between gun prevalence and a state’s nonfirearm suicide rate,” he adds.
Homicides

Two-thirds of all murders between 2003 and 2007 involved guns. The average number of Americans shot and killed daily during those years was 33. Of those, one was a child (0 to 14 years), five were teenagers (15 to 19 years) and seven were young adults (20 to 24 years), on average.

Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

“The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage,” writes Hemenway.

“For example, a large percentage of homicides — and especially homicides in the home — occur during altercations over matters such as love, money, and domestic problems, involving acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members; often the assailant or victim has been drinking. Only a small minority of homicides appear to be the carefully planned acts of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill. Most gun killings are indistinguishable from nonfatal gun shootings; it is just a question of the caliber of the gun, whether a vital organ is hit, and how much time passes before medical treatment arrives.”
Benefits?

The possible health benefits of gun ownership are twofold: deterring crime and stopping crimes in progress. But there are no credible studies, says Hemenway, that higher levels of gun ownership actually do these things.

“The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence,” he writes. “However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger. Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home.”

In fact, adds Hemenway, research shows that most self-defense use of guns is not socially desirable. He describes one study in which “criminal court judges from across the United States read the 35 descriptions of the reported self-defense firearm uses from 2 national surveys and found that, even if description of the event was accurate, in most of the cases, the self-defense gun use was probably illegal. Many were arguments that escalated into gun use.”
Real risks

“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”

“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”

Hemenway’s review appeared in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine and can be read in full online.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minnpost.com%2Fsecond-opinion%2F2012%2F12%2Fhealth-risk-having-gun-home&ei=BZ_SUMfuF5DyqAGX0YDgBg&usg=AFQjCNH4UCBYorD_FHdPgLtMpVRz_xd4HA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.aWM

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full
Abstract

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years.

Thursday December 20, 2012, 5:40 am
This appears to be the most reasonable of the petitions I've thus far signed (about 12), requesting very sensible legislation, while I on the other hand am far more extremist :} If I had my 'ruthers, I'd sue the NRA for treason and domestic terrorism, and then I'd abolish this antiquated 2nd amendment that was designed at a different point in history, when the country had no organized militia

Friday December 21, 2012, 9:55 am
This sad stampede of Sheeple to a positively wrong and hurtful conclusion worries and saddens me. We need solutions not rambling dogma.
I predict that Dr. Gary North's assessment of the situation will prove (thankfully) to be true. Read here:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10461.cfm
I repeat from other posts like this...
First I am neither a Right Wing Nut or A Left Wing Nut.
I have been around firearms, of all kinds, all my life. I am 65 years old. I am definitely a “gun enthusiast”.
When this old Left Wing chestnut would come up about the restriction of firearms (after whatever the current tragic event that would stir it up) my hay seed Okie family would say “Guns Don't Kill People! - People Kill People!” then laugh at these silly people. I still sincerely believe that is true.
I urge you to read this insightful The New York Times article about Adam Lanza:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/adam-lanza-an-enigma-who-is-now-identified-as-a-mass-killer.html?_r=2&
Please HEAR the facts about Adams obviously terribly painful life experience and the total lack of intervention by ANYONE even though there is much talk, in this article, of the recognition of many problems, manifested by Adam, by everyone (it seems) that knew him. People that knew him said they were not surprised by his actions!!!
How can that be???
Violence is a disease and if we can't put out enough heart and resources to recognize and treat this disease I fear for our society.
As for the Left Wing Nuts that are stirring up this tired old “gun nut” story....
Shame on you for using legitimate grief and sorrow to stir up more hatred and fear to promote your silly ideas. That is definitely NOT what is needed.
I am sure that the Prison Industrial Complex is licking it's lips at the prospect of stricter laws as a solution to this issue. It will feed their inhumane institutions with more poor souls that will feed their bottom line and that in turn will feed our culture of violence. Around and around we go!
I wish us luck!
I will read with glee your bleated rants in response to my thoughts.

Saturday December 22, 2012, 2:04 pm
I'm in agreement with this. Some gun control's reasonable and needed and we've a need to more strongly enforce the controls we've already got. And those who're against sensible restrictions are just helping those who want to altogether abolish a private citizen's right to bear arms for self-defense.